Hole v Ross-Skinner [2003] EWCA Civ 774 (20 May 2003)

Hole v Ross-Skinner [2003] EWCA Civ 774 (20 May 2003)

No evidence established that the defendant's breach of duty caused the escape of horses or the accident; general scruffiness of gates and fences was insufficient to prove negligence or causation.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 774
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Brian Hole; Defendant/appellant: Harry John Crawley Ross-Skinner
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Strict Liability, Animals Act 1971, Duty of Care
Tort Law Animal Law Negligence Strict Liability Animals Act 1971 Duty of Care

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Hole

Claimant/respondent

Harry John Crawley Ross-Skinner

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached his duty of care in relation to the escape of horses causing injury
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was liable under common law negligence for the accident

Ratio Decidendi

No evidence established that the defendant's breach of duty caused the escape of horses or the accident; general scruffiness of gates and fences was insufficient to prove negligence or causation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • No order for costs